Execution & Exoneration

Medical ethics prevailed (at least momentarily) when two anesthesiologists refused to participate in Michael Angelo Morales' execution planned for 12:01 am this morning. Last week a judge ordered an anesthesiologist be on hand to intervene in the event Morales woke up or appeared to be in pain. The death warrant runs out at 11:59 pm tonight, so unless California manages to execute him by sedation before then, it is unlikely Morales will be put to death. The trial judge would have to re-issue the death warrant, a highly unlikely probability given that he supported Morales' plea for clemency to Governor Arnold earlier this month.

The family of Terri Winchell, who was 17 years old at the time she was raped and murdered twenty-five years ago, were clearly upset that the pain Morales may potentially experience would be a concern.

But the 8th Amendment applies to what actions the state may take. I realize that capital punishment is a difficult topic and there are highly divergent views. Do I condone the rape and murder of a 17-year-old? Of course not. But I absolutely do not condone the state taking calculated action in the name of justice to "right" the wrong.

Although his wasn't a capital case, Alan Crotzer was exonerated last month after DNA evidence proved his innocence. While Michael Morales admitted to his crimes, I remain resolved that executing him retains the status of murder. And murdering the murderer is neither satisfying nor just nor humane. Violence begets violence.